Who's more anti-science? Republicans or Democrats?

[kirksnosehair]

Over the weekend, my wife and I had dinner with some people we know who work at Harvard University.  One of them is a Professor of Sociology and the other runs a laboratory where they are doing some cancer research on rodents.  This topic is always a hot topic with them and since I had seen it here, I brought this up during dinner.  I usually steer clear of politics with my friends unless I know they are of the same opinion as me, not because I don't want or like my opinions challenged, but because I think there's a lot of potential for blowing up a good friendship when you bring politics or religion into it....

Anyway, I asked the question, straight up, just the way it's asked in the subject line of the OP:  Who's more anti-science?  Republicans or Democrats?

The both said, pretty much unequivocally, that Republicans are more anti-science.  They clarified by saying that Republican "Administrations" were more anti-science, and then they both recited some pretty solid budgetary evidence in support of their arguments.  Basically, when we've had Democrats in power, the flow of funding to their work has been much more steady and reliable, whereas when we've had Republicans in power, the flow of funding is almost always under threat of suspension.

Barry, keep in mind where you live. MA is one of the most liberal states in the Union.

I'm referring to (and was asking them about) federal funding for their research. Some of their grants come from private entities, but a very large swath of it comes from the federal government and really, the political leanings of my state are not relevant there.  Both of them have worked at Harvard for over 20 years.  One is tenured, one is on a tenure track.  Both said that federal funding for research has flowed to them in larger quantities and with much more frequency under the Obama and Clinton administrations than it did under the Bush administration. 

Does that make Republicans more anti-science?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it shows (at least in anecdotal fashion) that scientific research definitely seems to be something that Democratic administrations have more interest in providing funding for than Republican administrations.    They told me some real horror stories about trying to get funding during Bush's second term.  These people are on the front lines with this stuff....

[Super Dude]

Over the weekend, my wife and I had dinner with some people we know who work at Harvard University.  One of them is a Professor of Sociology and the other runs a laboratory where they are doing some cancer research on rodents.  This topic is always a hot topic with them and since I had seen it here, I brought this up during dinner.  I usually steer clear of politics with my friends unless I know they are of the same opinion as me, not because I don't want or like my opinions challenged, but because I think there's a lot of potential for blowing up a good friendship when you bring politics or religion into it....

Anyway, I asked the question, straight up, just the way it's asked in the subject line of the OP:  Who's more anti-science?  Republicans or Democrats?

The both said, pretty much unequivocally, that Republicans are more anti-science.  They clarified by saying that Republican "Administrations" were more anti-science, and then they both recited some pretty solid budgetary evidence in support of their arguments.  Basically, when we've had Democrats in power, the flow of funding to their work has been much more steady and reliable, whereas when we've had Republicans in power, the flow of funding is almost always under threat of suspension.

Barry, keep in mind where you live. MA is one of the most liberal states in the Union.

As your fellow Michigander, and as one who worked for one of our Congressman in the past, I can tell you he's on the right track.

[snapple]

Over the weekend, my wife and I had dinner with some people we know who work at Harvard University.  One of them is a Professor of Sociology and the other runs a laboratory where they are doing some cancer research on rodents.  This topic is always a hot topic with them and since I had seen it here, I brought this up during dinner.  I usually steer clear of politics with my friends unless I know they are of the same opinion as me, not because I don't want or like my opinions challenged, but because I think there's a lot of potential for blowing up a good friendship when you bring politics or religion into it....

Anyway, I asked the question, straight up, just the way it's asked in the subject line of the OP:  Who's more anti-science?  Republicans or Democrats?

The both said, pretty much unequivocally, that Republicans are more anti-science.  They clarified by saying that Republican "Administrations" were more anti-science, and then they both recited some pretty solid budgetary evidence in support of their arguments.  Basically, when we've had Democrats in power, the flow of funding to their work has been much more steady and reliable, whereas when we've had Republicans in power, the flow of funding is almost always under threat of suspension.

Barry, keep in mind where you live. MA is one of the most liberal states in the Union.

As your fellow Michigander, and as one who worked for one of our Congressman in the past, I can tell you he's on the right track.

Michigan has been a blue state, too.

[Super Dude]

And right now it's being a red state.

[El Barto]

Over the weekend, my wife and I had dinner with some people we know who work at Harvard University.  One of them is a Professor of Sociology and the other runs a laboratory where they are doing some cancer research on rodents.  This topic is always a hot topic with them and since I had seen it here, I brought this up during dinner.  I usually steer clear of politics with my friends unless I know they are of the same opinion as me, not because I don't want or like my opinions challenged, but because I think there's a lot of potential for blowing up a good friendship when you bring politics or religion into it....

Anyway, I asked the question, straight up, just the way it's asked in the subject line of the OP:  Who's more anti-science?  Republicans or Democrats?

The both said, pretty much unequivocally, that Republicans are more anti-science.  They clarified by saying that Republican "Administrations" were more anti-science, and then they both recited some pretty solid budgetary evidence in support of their arguments.  Basically, when we've had Democrats in power, the flow of funding to their work has been much more steady and reliable, whereas when we've had Republicans in power, the flow of funding is almost always under threat of suspension.

Barry, keep in mind where you live. MA is one of the most liberal states in the Union.

I'm referring to (and was asking them about) federal funding for their research. Some of their grants come from private entities, but a very large swath of it comes from the federal government and really, the political leanings of my state are not relevant there.  Both of them have worked at Harvard for over 20 years.  One is tenured, one is on a tenure track.  Both said that federal funding for research has flowed to them in larger quantities and with much more frequency under the Obama and Clinton administrations than it did under the Bush administration. 

Does that make Republicans more anti-science?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it shows (at least in anecdotal fashion) that scientific research definitely seems to be something that Democratic administrations have more interest in providing funding for than Republican administrations.    They told me some real horror stories about trying to get funding during Bush's second term.  These people are on the front lines with this stuff....

While I largely agree with your position,  I will point out the problems with this reasoning.  A:  Being opposed to federal funding of the sciences isn't the same as being opposed to science.  That does tend to be more of a republican thing,  but not really a huge factor, because... B:  preferring the work of one group of scientists is not the same as being opposed to science.  Republicans, regardless of their stance on government funding,  will still pump money into research if it's an area they approve of.  The same thing with the Democrats.  Doesn't make either group anti-science.  It just makes them anti-your-research.  C:  This is George W. Bush we're talking about in your example.  You'd be hard pressed to find an administration with a lower regard for scientific research than his,  for the simple reason that he was a simple man.  He concerned himself with concrete matters;  not undefined ones.  I wouldn't recommend using him as a barometer of any sort,  save perhaps idiocy. 

[kirksnosehair]

but...but....doesn't "having a low regard for scientific research" kinda make you "anti-science" ??  I mean, it's really not that big of a leap, is it?

[El Barto]

but...but....doesn't "having a low regard for scientific research" kinda make you "anti-science" ??  I mean, it's really not that big of a leap, is it?

My point wasn't that Chimpy isn't anti-science,  he is,  but that his anti-science bias doesn't necessarily reflect the GOP in general.  At this point,  I don't think the GOP wants his dumb ass held up as an example of anything.

[Super Dude]

but...but....doesn't "having a low regard for scientific research" kinda make you "anti-science" ??  I mean, it's really not that big of a leap, is it?

My point wasn't that Chimpy isn't anti-science,  he is,  but that his anti-science bias doesn't necessarily reflect the GOP in general.  At this point,  I don't think the GOP wants his dumb ass held up as an example of anything.

I think the use of Chimpy in recent years as "the good old days" and "miss me yet?" invalidate that.

[kirksnosehair]

but...but....doesn't "having a low regard for scientific research" kinda make you "anti-science" ??  I mean, it's really not that big of a leap, is it?

My point wasn't that Chimpy isn't anti-science,  he is,  but that his anti-science bias doesn't necessarily reflect the GOP in general.  At this point,  I don't think the GOP wants his dumb ass held up as an example of anything.

Oh, yeah, well, yeah